Well in that case they should be the favorite to win the World Series every year by a fair margin.

Click to expand...

And they have been

Click to expand...

No they haven't. I can't think of a year in the last decade, perhaps beside 2009, where going into the year the Yankees were considered far and away the best team in the league. With their payroll it shouldn't even be a conversation. They shouldn't be on the same level as other teams. If you are spending 40% more then the other teams, then your team should be that much better. Not just in the grouping of good contending teams, but the absolute favorite.

Well in that case they should be the favorite to win the World Series every year by a fair margin.

Click to expand...

And they have been

Click to expand...

No they haven't. I can't think of a year in the last decade, perhaps beside 2009, where going into the year the Yankees were considered far and away the best team in the league. With their payroll it shouldn't even be a conversation. They shouldn't be on the same level as other teams. If you are spending 40% more then the other teams, then your team should be that much better. Not just in the grouping of good contending teams, but the absolute favorite.

Click to expand...

Then why do the haters complain? As far as you are concerned they just spend tons of money just to lose so why even bring it up as an unfair advantage?

Because it's still an advantage. They are relieved of the burdens of mismanagement. While they won't win every year, their money makes them competitive regardless of how stupid their decisions are. With the possible exception of teams in LA, no one else can do this. In addition, it distorts the market. Other teams can plan smart, but they can't save for the big final piece because they'll be outbid by NY for him. That's the problem.

For every other team, the luxury tax is enough to remedy this without having to go to the harsh inflexibility of a salary cap. But the Yankees are apparently immune to this as well now.

Because it's still an advantage. They are relieved of the burdens of mismanagement. While they won't win every year, their money makes them competitive regardless of how stupid their decisions are. With the possible exception of teams in LA, no one else can do this. In addition, it distorts the market. Other teams can plan smart, but they can't save for the big final piece because they'll be outbid by NY for him. That's the problem.

For every other team, the luxury tax is enough to remedy this without having to go to the harsh inflexibility of a salary cap. But the Yankees are apparently immune to this as well now.

Click to expand...

It's clearly not that much of a problem since according to you the Yankees are mismanaged. As a matter of fact, they are doing the rest of the league a favor by buying up terrible players while leaving the door open for other teams to spend smartly. You should be grateful.

Went to Giants Fanfest today and had a great time. Didn't do any of the stuff that you had to stand in line for hours, such as the dugout tours (I think I heard you could have toured the locker room) or the autographs. I did get tickets for the July 3rd (My Birthday) game against the Cardinals and just took in the atmosphere. Walked on the field, took lots of pictures, and listened to the various KNBR interviews. It was a great day, and it's getting me ready for Baseball season. Can't believe Pitchers and Catchers report in a few weeks.

Because it's still an advantage. They are relieved of the burdens of mismanagement. While they won't win every year, their money makes them competitive regardless of how stupid their decisions are. With the possible exception of teams in LA, no one else can do this. In addition, it distorts the market. Other teams can plan smart, but they can't save for the big final piece because they'll be outbid by NY for him. That's the problem.

For every other team, the luxury tax is enough to remedy this without having to go to the harsh inflexibility of a salary cap. But the Yankees are apparently immune to this as well now.

Click to expand...

It's clearly not that much of a problem since according to you the Yankees are mismanaged. As a matter of fact, they are doing the rest of the league a favor by buying up terrible players while leaving the door open for other teams to spend smartly. You should be grateful.

Click to expand...

To me, it's just ridiculous that one or two teams can just nab every top notch player they want. Players that may or may not get them to the promised land, but might just put another team over the hump.

A cap certainly makes it more fair and more challenging for a team to "make it happen".

As a matter of fact, they are doing the rest of the league a favor by buying up terrible players while leaving the door open for other teams to spend smartly. You should be grateful.

Click to expand...

See, this is the kind of shit that gets on people's nerves when talking with certain Yankees fans. It becomes one of two lines of conversation. It's either, "The Yankees have totally killed it this offseason, it's time for another World Series " like the Commissioner's Trophy is the Yankees' fucking divine right of Kings or some shit like that, or it's "Yeah, the Yankees are making it easy on everyone else on purpose, enjoy it while you can " like everything is God's Master Plan to make sure that Yankee Stadium will eventually always reign supreme. There's a complete lack of self-awareness and it's nauseating.

I mean, let's take a look at the Yankees' infield for this season. If / when Jeter and Teixeira go down in May (Teixeira is feeling stiffness in his wrist, which is a red flag after major surgery, and Jeter looks to be made of balsa wood at this point), an infield that exceeds the Marlins' entire payroll will then be earning about $7 million. Putting yourself in a situation where you need Brian Roberts to stay healthy is not a recipe for success. But there are people trying to rationalize that kind of dumpster diving as a masterstroke. The hell?

Anyway, two weeks to spring training, thank God. That the Cubs are focusing on making sure the kids learn (even though it's pretty much a given that every single Cubs prospect is going to bust horribly or look really good for a season and then get mauled by wolves or have their souls consumed by that terrifying new mascot or something) and are not even bothering to compete for another year is pretty relaxing: Pay attention for the first quarter of the season, gradually tune out as they suck, then root against the Cardinals in the playoffs isn't a bad way to watch baseball.

Heh, Cubs are going through a rough patch, but at least it's more or less intentional right now. Theo is pretty good at drafting, but unlike say the NFL, it takes a while for that to translate to the big club. Give it another 3-4 years, and should build up enough lottery tickets that at least a few start to pay off, then you can go grab the missing pieces in FA and see what happens.

Kinda brutal in the short term, but how building long-term success works in MLB. Unless you just drop a billion dollars and buy the Marlins' roster or something...

Answer to the last question is that instead of a cap, you do it like you do now, except keep escalating the penalties for being over the tax threshold, make it hurt a little more.

And in addition, you create a FLOOR that teams have to spend to if they want to participate in the revenue sharing, and penalties for not reaching THAT as well. Teams that spend less than their share of the revenue sharing piss me off, and should be contracted. If I give you 30M in cash, plus you charge for tickets and food/booze, why can't you field a team that costs more than 25M? Just plain old greed there...

I'd be fine with that provided we actually reach a penalty even the Yankees would comply with. For awhile, it looked like we did and I was prepared to think of Baseball's system as a good one. But I fear nothing will overcome the market imbalance.

I have no problem with that deal. Freeman is easily the best hitting player on the team who also plays gold glove level defense. He is signed young so they will get the best years out of him. I'm glad he got the payday over Heyward who has tremendous upside but is often injured. Kimbrel might be as good as gone though.

I have no problem with that deal. Freeman is easily the best hitting player on the team who also plays gold glove level defense. He is signed young so they will get the best years out of him. I'm glad he got the payday over Heyward who has tremendous upside but is often injured. Kimbrel might be as good as gone though.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Freeman has had precisely one really, really good season, and he just got a $16 million per year contract for it. Freeman's SLG went up 50 points but his ISO dropped by about 15. His 2013 line was great, but was propped up by a lot of extra singles and a BABIP I don't think he has the hitting skills to keep up. There's really no reason to extend him after a season he may never top, especially when he still has 3+ cheap years with which to back up that 2013 performance.

He's not a bad player, but he's not a "gotta lock up for eight years" player. Could have taken some of that money and extended McCann instead.

eh, you might be right but I've watched him closely the past few years and he has improved every year he has played and he was a prominent run producer for the Braves last year. I think what got him the deal was mainly his consistency throughout the entire season as opposed to guys like Justin Upton who have two mega months and sputter in between. It appears they have attached themselves to Freddie as the face of the franchise. The fans love him, he is a good guy and while there may be some risk, I think a fall off is unlikely. He has a tremendous approach to the plate and he isn't going to get dumber up there. I didn't like the Uggla or Upton deals but I think they played the Heyward situation pretty well and I don't think the Freeman deal is a killer. 7 of his 8 years he will be in his twenties and he is pretty durable.

I really don't want to pay a lot of money for a closer though. I'm fine with trading Kimbrel if the arbitration hearing doesn't go well.

I have no problem with that deal. Freeman is easily the best hitting player on the team who also plays gold glove level defense. He is signed young so they will get the best years out of him. I'm glad he got the payday over Heyward who has tremendous upside but is often injured. Kimbrel might be as good as gone though.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Freeman has had precisely one really, really good season, and he just got a $16 million per year contract for it. Freeman's SLG went up 50 points but his ISO dropped by about 15. His 2013 line was great, but was propped up by a lot of extra singles and a BABIP I don't think he has the hitting skills to keep up. There's really no reason to extend him after a season he may never top, especially when he still has 3+ cheap years with which to back up that 2013 performance.

He's not a bad player, but he's not a "gotta lock up for eight years" player. Could have taken some of that money and extended McCann instead.

Click to expand...

Not saying I disagree with you, but should a ball club want to contract a player like that DURING his young years?

I mean look at the Yankees. They are ALWAYS paying big bucks for player that "had" great numbers for a few years.... and always getting dogged for it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I think this is a good sign for this kid. It's got to be lower risk that what the Yankees do.

The two warning signs on Freeman were the not-insignificant drop in ISO, and again that .371 BABIP. That's a completely unsustainable number, which means his batting average is due to fall back down to Earth -- he needs his walk rate to take a huge jump in order to keep his OBP anywhere near where it was last year.

It would be a fine deal if Freeman had more than one year of this kind of performance under his belt. As it stands right now, however, it's a season that exists in a vacuum, with nothing before or since to really establish context. This is only arb-1 for Freeman; if he hits like a moon monster in 2014, then, okay, I see the wisdom in signing him long-term. But as it stands right now, an eight-year contract after one good season is far too much money, far too soon, because with the lack of statistical context, it's entirely possible that 2013 was the best season Freeman will ever have. I'm not saying that's likely, but it's possible. It just makes no sense to lock up a guy for almost a decade after one good year.

In addition to potentially using that money to extend McCann, the Braves could have saved that money in case Heyward and Upton take huge strides over the next couple of seasons. Justin Upton might not get a lot better, but, if he suddenly starts approaching the Upton everybody was waiting for (and I'm thinking more in terms of power than batting average), they're going to feel stupid when they're paying Freeman that much money and Upton is heading out the door.